Recent comments in /f/Maine

Existing_Bat1939 t1_j7uqsw4 wrote

I've noticed the login not sticking well in various browsers recently; it's very annoying.

Beyond that, I either read the physical paper or use a regular browser. I rarely open the ePaper app on desktop or phone.

3

TheBookShopOfBF t1_j7upj1u wrote

Yeah, the experience is as you describe. Generally, I read it on my laptop and the experience is mostly fine. And then I get the Sunday physical paper, which I still enjoy, though it gets smaller all the time.

On the phone, I log in basically every time I click through. Not ideal. But I generally don't like reading on my phone anyway.

People tell me that the e-paper product on a tablet is a good experience. Much better than just a pdf. But that's not my jam.

5

MrsMurphysChowder t1_j7ul7b6 wrote

You did a great job calling them all out in the comments. Time to rally the neighbors in the immediate area, and possibly offer the guy help cleaning up his property and adopting out some of the dogs? The article says he's disabled so I'm thinking 2 things might be factoring into his inability/unwillingness to properly care for these dogs he calls his babies:

  1. Perhaps he relies on the sale of the dogs for part of his income, and is too proud to ask for financial help or is not eligible for financial help.
  2. Perhaps his disability prevents him from doing the labor required for proper care of the dogs and he does not have anyone to help him. I don't know the guy personally, I am just conjecturing, however I am disabled and unable to work and yet do not qualify for any assistance so I can see how that might be an issue for someone else as well. I am definitely not defending leaving dogs out in Sub-Zero temperatures, but I always try to look at situations from a kind perspective. This article is the first I've seen mention of his disability.
10

archilchimes t1_j7ubhm9 wrote

I think you've all seen this, but just in case: I'm the complainant mentioned in that article, and I go over my experience and the big issue with the article here.

In brief: when the reporter asked for my side of the story, I sent her documentation & recordings of evident violations, info on statutes, and evidence that the ACO and Maine Animal Welfare had a pattern of ignoring complaints/apparently obstructing for the place. The reporter said the info was too complex for the length of story she was allowed to write and just ignored it entirely, taking the ACO and Animal Welfare completely at their word. Thankfully, from the comments and others' first-hand experiences with the place, it looks like no one is buying the gloss-over.

Seriously, thank you all for that.

57